On Monday 18th August the Kalamunda Shire Council considered a
submission from the Shire to Western Power in relation to the site
selection process.
Although the last date for submissions passed on 31 July the Council had arranged an extension.
The submission was passed unanimously. The submission is reproduced below, and makes very strong statements about
the proposed Eastern Terminal, the proposed gantry, the site selection
process, "no-go" areas, and
the need for open public consultation.
SHIRE
OF KALAMUNDA
SUBMISSION TO WESTERN POWER REGARDING THE SITE SELECTION
PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED EASTERN TERMINAL
1. CONSISTENT OPPOSITION
The Shire of Kalamunda has been involved in consultation
with Western Power and its predecessors concerning the proposed Eastern
Terminal substation since 1992. The
Shire has consistently opposed the proposal that an Eastern Terminal substation
be located in state forest or water catchment areas to the east of Kalamunda.
During this period Council established a policy of ‘vehement
opposition’ to the proposal. Council
understood that the issues had been resolved in May 2002 when Western Power
wrote to the community of Hacketts Gully stating:
“Following
a review of the long term electrical load requirements for the east
metropolitan area, we wish to advise that a terminal substation will no longer
required at Location 3897 Mundaring Weir Road, Hacketts Gully. We also have no
intention to acquire an alternative site in areas close to Hacketts Gully as
previously advised. The site at Location 3897 Mundaring Weir Road will be
either disposed of or held as an environmental/conservation asset to be traded
at some time in the future. Western Power has not intention to sell the land to
a private developer[1].”
1.1 Council is greatly concerned that Western
Power is now attempting to renege on its 2002 promises to the residents of
Hacketts Gully.
Council remains opposed to Western Power’s Eastern Terminal
proposal. On 17 March 2008 Council
unanimously adopted a motion that the Kalamunda Shire Council:
- expresses
its vehement opposition to siting of the substation within the study area
designated by Western Power as it consists mainly of Priority 1 &
Priority 2 water catchment areas, National Park and State Forest, and consequently
is unacceptable on environmental, economic and social grounds,
- expresses
its vehement opposition to the announcement by Western Power of the 7
February 2008 that it is intending to construct a gantry structure near
the intersection of Mundaring Weir Road and Bahen Road, Hacketts Gully, without
any prior consultation with either the Council or affected residents in
Hacketts Gully.
1.2 Council
remains vehemently opposed to an Eastern Terminal and the proposed gantry
structure in Hacketts Gully on environmental, social and economic grounds.
2. WATER CATCHMENT
The Shire of Kalamunda has adhered to the terms of the
‘Water Management Strategy’ in Public Drinking Water Source Areas when
considering development applications in Priority 1, 2 & 3 areas. The Eastern Terminal study area encompasses
all three Priority areas and falls within the Mundaring, Middle Helena and
Victoria catchments. As a consequence,
use of land in these areas has been restricted in terms of the number and types
of animals, the secondary processing of farm, orchard and vineyard produce and
the imposition of housing envelopes on subdivided land so that water quality is
preserved.
Council notes that under the ‘Water Management Strategy’ the
category of ‘energy industry’ is incompatible.
Council also notes that recent announcements by the Water Corporation
confirm Mundaring Weir as one of three key catchment areas in the Perth
metropolitan area[2].
2.1 Council believes the construction of an
Eastern Terminal in this area of State Forest and Priority 1 & 2 water
catchments will set an unacceptable precedent and seriously undermine Council’s
attempts to implement its strategy to secure water quality in the catchments.
3. ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND RECREATION
The Shire’s strategic plan places particular value on the
environment, ecotourism as an important economic driver, and the importance of
the natural environment for recreation.
The proposed Eastern Terminal – whether as a switchyard or
substation – would have a strong negative impact on these values.
The ‘gantry’ structure would have a major visible impact on
the important tourist route which connects Kalamunda to the Mundaring Weir,
Lake C.Y.O’Connor, the O’Connor Museum, the Hills Forest Centre and the
Bibbulmun and Munda Biddi Trails and, in turn, on the recreational amenity of
these areas.
In May 2008 Tourism W.A. stated:[3]
- Perth
Hills area has been identified as an emerging tourism destination within
the Experience Perth Destination Development Strategy 2007-2017.
- Tourism
development in the Perth Hills destination is seen as strategically
important as the Perth Hills product has direct synergy with three of the
five iconic tourism experiences used to position Western Australia in the
marketplace. (These include Forest & Flowers, Wine & Food, people
& Lifestyle).
- The
Bibbulmun Track and the Munda Biddi Trail hold iconic significance at a
State level and form an important component of marketing Western Australia
at a strategic level.
3.1 Council believes the Eastern Terminal
& ‘gantry’ proposals would undermine the tourism strategies of the Shire of
Kalamunda and Tourism W.A.
4. SITE SELECTION PROCESS PAPER: THE PROJECT – A SWITCHYARD OR A
SUBSTATION?
Pages 2-5 of the May 2008 Site Selection Process Paper outline Western Power’s plans for the
construction of an Eastern Terminal switchyard.
Council is greatly concerned that in all previous information, including
the briefing of Planning Services Committee on 10 December 2007, Western Power
has consistently referred to an Eastern Terminal substation. Despite Mr de
Laeter’s presentation to Planning Services Committee on 11 August 2008, the
reasons for the change are not clear, either to Council or to the
community. There continues to be very
substantial community confusion concerning Western Power’s intentions,
particularly given Western Power’s stated intention to acquire an area of 20
hectares, the area required for a substation.
Council is aware that Western Power proposes upgrading to
132 kV the 66 kV line which traverses Hacketts Gully and Paulls Valley. It is assumed that should this occur,
transformers would be required to convert 330 kV power to 132 kV, requiring the
first stage of a substation.
4.1 The confusion that Western Power has
created in the minds of the community as a result of its inconsistent
descriptions of this project has significantly compromised the integrity of the
consultation process, and raises serious questions about the adequacy of
Western Power’s planning.
4.2 Council believes that, in assessing the
potential long-term impact of the proposal, because of the uncertainty
concerning the eventual development of an Eastern Terminal, Council must assume
that it may ultimately comprise an Eastern Terminal substation; until
such time that an unequivocal assurance is provided by Western Power
that this is not the case.
5. SITE SELECTION PROCESS PAPER: PROPOSED
DECISION AND SITE SELECTION PROCESS
The description in the Site
Selection Process Paper of the proposed site selection process is
confusing, and is expressed in language that would not readily be understood by
many people. Those unfamiliar with the
background to the Eastern Terminal proposal would have found it difficult to
make informed comments about the process.
Council notes that of the 600 submissions received, only 37 were
concerned with the process. It is
suggested that this is reflective of (a) the strength of community opposition
to an Eastern Terminal, (b) the likelihood that many respondents were not
prepared to comment on a site selection process as they were opposed to an
Eastern Terminal anywhere in the study area, and (c) difficulty in
understanding and commenting on the proposed process.
The Site Selection
Process Paper identifies the following as “no-go” areas in which an Eastern
Terminal would not be constructed: Reservoir Protection Zones; a buffer around
the Perth Observatory; National Parks; and a 500 metre buffer around
residential areas. Council notes that
following the exclusion of these areas the remaining area of interest would
consist wholly of Priority 1 and 2 water catchment.
5.1 Council
believes that the following MUST ALSO be designated as “no-go” areas:
a) the locality of Hacketts Gully in its
entirety;
b) all Priority 1 and 2 water catchment
areas;
c) a buffer of at least 500 metres on each
side of the Bibbulmun Track, the Munda Biddi Track, the Lower Helena Bridle
Trail, Kalamunda Circuit and The Dell picnic area, consistent with Western
Power’s proposed setbacks for private property;
d) all Environmentally Sensitive Areas as
defined by the Department of Environment and Conservation; and
e) a buffer of at least 1000 m (rather
than 500 m) around all residential areas.
5.2 Council believes the threat of
Phythophthera die back disease means that any development involving the clearing
of forest in the study poses an unacceptable risk.
Council is greatly concerned that while the Site Selection Process Paper proposes
the application of sustainability principles to the selection of a specific
site, the decision by Western Power to locate an Eastern Terminal within the
study area was based only on economic
and technical criteria.
5.3 Council believes it is essential that, to
ensure consistent decision making and to convince the community that Western
Power is genuine in its use of sustainability principles, the decision to
locate an Eastern Terminal east of Kalamunda must be reconsidered, using the
sustainability principles proposed for the site selection process.
6. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Council
is greatly concerned that, given the level of confusion in the community about
Western Power’s intentions, the Site
Selection Process Paper makes no provision for open community consultation
through public meetings. The Paper refers only to “information
sessions during the Site Options Discussion Paper comment period to explain the
sites identified.” Community members who
were not invited to the 2007 workshops but who have been included in the 2008
process will be seriously disadvantaged.
Community members and organisations will find it difficult to
participate in the proposed site selection process if they have a confused or
incorrect understanding of Western Power’s plans.
6.1 Council believes it is essential that open
information sessions are conducted as soon as possible to properly inform the
community of the latest proposals for an Eastern Terminal. Without such opportunities, Western Power’s
community consultation process will be fundamentally flawed.
[1] Letter from Mr R Teh of WPC, 9th May,
2002
[2] ‘The West Australian’ 22 July 2008
[3] Letter to Perth Hills Vignerons
Association 27 May 2008